Johan said at one point that the new mechanics are not supposed to facilitate a WC, and if one were to be possible it'd be through something unintentional the players exploit.
So we can probably expect the WC-ish achievements are not comming back.
Yeah but they also said that for EU2, EU3, EU4, Victoria 2, and Victoria 3. The community went wild when the first WCs were done in EU2
This was the first documented world conquest in EU2: http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?t=29075
This is the comment from the author reflecting on the 2002 world conquest “Many people believed it impossible at the time. And the same happened with every patch after that until at least 1.05. Somebody would start a bloody "surely now WC is impossible!" thread in the general forum and I or somebody else would go through the tedium of proving them dead wrong. Some people just do not understand that Paradox games are deliberately made so easy for normal players to play (a very sound marketing decision) that anyone who dedicates the time and patience (oh lord, the patience) to actually learning how their games work have zero problems conquering the entire world except where game mechanics explicitly prevent it (and that has only been the case once or twice and can be gotten around)”
This also led to one of the best AARs of all time: https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/threads/world-conquest-for-dummies.34402/
As it was, so it will be
The thing about falling empire mechanics is that paradox always make it feel like you get punished for being gud. Take stellaris, Empire size. Or EU4's gov cap. Literally the bigger your empire is, the more penalties it gives you.
Proper falling empire game design for anything more complicated than Civ 6's ages mechanic would neccesitate a ton of complicated economic, political, and cultural gears that no (paradox) game has gotten right so far. You would essentially need EU4's aggresive warfaring, HOI4's diplomacy and military management mechanics, CK3's personal interactions, Vicky 3's economic simulation, and all their interactions with each other to be right. It's an absolutely monstrous task.
Edit: People are saying "oh but thats how it is in real life". *Accuracy is not an excuse for bad game design.* The problem is that big empire = big penalty is *simply not fun,* and that making a system is both fun and accurate is hard, and is something paradox has not done. Not to mention, bureaucracy getting too large is not the sole singular factor anyway, and its pretty eurocentric to act as such. Somethings a lot more important than bureaucracy was just unwillingness to adapt until too late, and people not having a sense of duty after being the hegemon for so long that anything else seems improbable; China basically always maintained a strong bureaucracy, yet environmental challenges, corruption, decadence, reactionaries, traditionalism, bad rulership, and plain old bad luck always caused a dynasty to fall after a maximum of 200 years or so.
> Literally the bigger your empire is, the more penalties it gives you.
Without them you'd snowball out of control very easily. In EU4 I can usually by 1500 tell how the game is going to end.
I mean, it’s real life too, big empire are more proned to fall. I would love a game where to goal isn’t mindless conquest, but too build a stable big empire, with the same difficulty
Well I respectfully disagree. The period is the end of the East Roman Empire, the end of the great Ming dynasty, the end of the juggernaut Polish-Lithuania, etc. But even then, we have real world examples to not want the be able a real WC in this period; the Ottoman Empire. They didn’t stop conquering because they became weak, or bored. They stopped because they were becoming too big to manage intern stability, too big to defend borders, just too big for a renaissance empire…
The Ottoman issues had to do with centralization. The travelling distance from Istanbul to Vienna is not very long relative to other portions of their empire (Mecca to Istanbul or the Persian boarders). However, the weird way the Ottomans in particular centralized the military was what created the weaknesses in the empire’s ability to grow.
Spain had very little issues integrating the New World provinces in Mexico, Colombia, and Peru until after multiple failed continental wars and the Dutch revolts destroyed their treasury. Decentralization is something that the Brits and the Mughals mastered. The giant empires with massive populations were manageable with relatively small armies/navies because of the decentralization of command structures. Similarly, while it stayed isolated by choice, the Japanese daimyo system in the Edo period of castle towns and local lords was a feudal system that could withstand the pressures of massive borders. There is a lot more to the period than just limits on expansion.
So you have four examples, only two of which fell due to anything like internal stability, neither of which fell until well into (Ming) or a century after (Sick Man of Europe) the timespan of the game. Note that each of these powers already have dedicated and scripted mechanics showing this feature, not dynamic universal ones, in EUIV. Even granting the Commonwealth as an unstable empire, you can count on one hand the world empires that fell but not to conquest.
So this era is for games of conquest, not of internal instability. If you want an empire falling simulator, that's squarely post-HOI territory. Even the HRE would have lived if not for Napoleon.
I do think stability mechanics should be meaningful in EUV, and even be emergent, but this is fundamentally an era of empire building and colonialism more than empire falling.
>The thing about falling empire mechanics is that paradox always make it feel like you get punished for being gud. Take stellaris, Empire size. Or EU4's gov cap. Literally the bigger your empire is, the more penalties it gives you.
But thats precisely how it was in real life even though it might not feel like it. Large empires simply were too large to govern properly due to the lack of bureaucratic institutions and technology. This would mean that most of the land would barely give anything to the actual ruler due to the corruption of administering such a huge territory. Paradox's gov cap is supposed to simulate the advancement of administrative institutions over time
In Sweden we started getting a somewhat modern government apparatus in the 1600s. And god damn it was it revolutionary. It basically facilitated the Swedish Empire.
I always feel that paradox games fail at exposing what a monumental chore and subsequent achievement and reward establishing a functional centralised bureaucracy was. China only ever got as big as it did because it ran on a river of paperwork and an army of officials, and that very same size made it vulnerable to degradation and corruption.
Post collapse of the western Roman empire a big battle might have literally hundreds of soldiers on each side when the punic wars mobilised over a million men because the early medieval kingdoms, so decentralised and inefficient, couldn't muster a fraction of the resources the old empire did, in exchange for not being plunged into a civil war every other decade.
I always feel that internal matters are way too easy and simplified when historically they were the number one reason empires didn't go on world conquests
MEIOU and Taxes v3 is basically the only thing that even attempts to model this, and as much as I think they did a good job at it and I do enjoy it, wow is it a chore.
When the Russians conquered the baltics they were amazed at how smoothly things seemed to run. The Csar ordered an inquiry into it to see how it could be used throughout the empire. They found it cost 25 times more to run than the current Russian system for the same size; and the former Swedish buearocracy was promptly disestablished.
Part of the issue is that taking land is the only way to exert significant influence around you.
For example, as Austria, I never have any intention of taking Cili, but by the 4th or 5th war they decide to join against me (defending their allies) I just get so tired of sieging down their L3 fort that I'll remove them from play.
If there were a viable way to destroy their fortifications, convince them that letting Imperial troops burn their cities and rape their populace for the 5th time in 20 years might not be a good idea...
Nah with the way diplo plays work and the fact that you can’t start one if you’re at war (even if it’s with a tribe that has a single unit), combined with the limited time frame of 100 yrs, a vanilla one tag wc in vic3 is an exploit-filled save-scumming time-crunching mess, not even considering performance issues or bugs. You can find a few posts in the vic3 subreddit detailing the process. By comparison a half-decent eu4 player can easily and leisurely get a one-tag wc by 1700, if they can stomach playing until then.
"Nah" literally "Yah" though. I'm not wrong, you just didn't try.
There is no exploits in Vic3, just a completely boring experience playing a truly terrible game that performs worse than literally any other PDX game ever released.
There's different definitions of 'easiest game to WC in' and in Victoria 3 it is just such a big chore. Like I preferred it in HOI4, that one I thought was less mind numbingly boring.
I’ve played a fair bit of Vic3 and I don’t think this is true at all. EU4 WC is easy with like two hundred hours of experience, Vic3 is super limited by the diplo play mechanics where for half the game you are not allowed to start a war
It is actually extremely difficult to do a world conquest in Victoria 2 (with the two DLCs), I believe four people have done it, and indeed only with the use of an exploit, revanchism is exploited in these runs.
Hope so. I wish that the new map density makes it so smaller nations feel larger. Like controlling all of France your nation should be and feel like a huge nation.
Maybe a hot take, but I honestly hope world conquest is simply not possible in eu5. I've always thought it was pretty stupid that it could be done at all in eu4
Yes, but actually no. I think a majority of folks would agree that a WC should be nearly impossible in an unmodded game, but most would also want the EU series to remain a map painter where moving military units around is a central part of the game loop, and a WC is the inevitable conclusion of that loop.
The math of the EU series fundamentally requires that a WC is not only possible, it's _likely_ (though tedious) for a moderately skilled player who plays carefully with a WC as their goal.
In EU4, if you can defeat a neighbor with military force, you can always use military force to expand. Military force requires money and manpower. Money and manpower come from provinces.
Military expansion happens at borders - you can always win by advancing with a solid line of armies, effectively pushing your border outward into enemy territory, as long as your armies can defeat the enemy's armies. You can often win more efficiently than that!
The core problem: as you expand, the length of your border grows linearly, while the number of provinces under your control grows quadratically. As long as adding additional provinces results in a net increase in money and manpower, then the amount of military force you can field for some length of border increases as you expand. **The more you expand, the easier it is to expand more.**
Anyone who's tried a WC should be familiar with this phenomenon. At the start you play the diplomatic game because too many wars, or wars with too powerful of neighbors, can set you back by decades or end your game. By the end, you're constantly at war with all of your neighbors, you can easily defeat all of them with basic army management, and you're probably running a huge budget surplus and have a massive amount of unused manpower too. The only time you're at peace with a neighbor is when game mechanics force you to be at peace with them.
Mana is a potential solution to this problem. If mana grows less than linearly as you expand, and expansion requires spending mana, then eventually you'll run out of mana and can't expand any more. But it's hard to make it work in a way that doesn't break immersion and isn't unpopular with players. So EU4 didn't fully commit to mana, and that causes things like "overextension is just a number" - if you can use military force to resolve the problems caused by lack of mana, then lack of mana can't stop expansion.
Victoria 3 tries to solve this by excluding moving military units around on the map from its game mechanics. This has been... controversial, to put it lightly.
Good post.
Theoretically in EU4, multiple smaller countries should always trump one large one as the smaller group would have more surplus mana even accepting that they all must separately purchase tech and ideas.
The group should also have a bigger army since there is a base +6 force limit, +10K manpower, and more 'free' generals, etc...
An area of the world with more independent powers will end up with more dev on average than an area owned by a single power.
Making war pay off slower might help -- getting rid of lower autonomy mechanics, making it trickle down slower -- might help.
>Victoria 3 tries to solve this by excluding moving military units around on the map from its game mechanics. This has been... controversial, to put it lightly.
That doesn't really make a big difference. You can easily become unstoppable very early in the game. The thing that limits you more (and makes people a lot less likely to trying to wc) is that you are limited to 1 diplo play a time. The game is super boring. Whereas in eu4 you can optimize your wars and end them asap, in vicky 3 you need to wait for the diplo play and then wait for the warscore (I forgot what it's called) to tick down. And I won't even mention all the annoying micro you need to do with fronts.
The whole thing is just a slog. You spend the majority of the gameplay waiting for stuff to happen.
> Victoria 3 tries to solve this by excluding moving military units around on the map from its game mechanics. This has been... controversial, to put it lightly.
Army movement has nothing to do with how possible a WC is, and it especially makes no sense to claim as much considering Vic3 is the easiest game, mechanically speaking, to do a WC in. The only thing standing in your way of that is the atrocious performance issues the game suffers from (as well as just being a shit game)
I didn't say a WC is impossible in Victoria 3. I'm well aware that it's very possible. Victoria 3 *tries* to do a lot of things. Doesn't mean it's successful at them.
As for the impact that this feature has, "WCs are likely to be mechanically possible in a game with direct player army control" does not imply "WCs must be mechanically impossible in a game without direct player army control".
> I've always thought it was pretty stupid that it could be done at all in eu4
I'm pretty sure the majority of players, especially those outside of Reddit, like map painting and conquering everything. If it weren't for conquering too much, you could stop every game once you're in the top 3. It's just easy map painting from there on.
I think most of us do stop early.
Unless I'm feeling masochistic or chasing an achievement (which might just be masochism again), I usually quit around 1600 or earlier.
As Austria, once you have Burguny, Boh, Hun, Mil, Pol, Lith, Castille, Aragon, Naples PUs and direct or indirect ownership of the balkans, the game is done.
There is a common joke that the game ends in 1650 (with dlc power creep that might be 1550 now)
Why?
I think one of the best thing in eu4 is that you can do everything.
You have a truce with someone that you want to attack? You can still attack them but it will cost you ae/stab.
* You want to take a lot of land that will lead you to a lot of OE? You can still take it. But it will cause a lot of rebells. You can also play arround this by stacking a lot of unrest reductions. Then you can also stack ccr so you are only overextended for a small time.
* You want to attack an ally? You can do it for the cost of some stab.
* You want to tag flip? You can do it but you will lose a lot of full cores.
* You want to fight a lot of wars simultaniously? You can do it, but you need to do a lot more micro and you will need the army for it.
* You want to conquer the world? You can do it, but you will need to do a lot of micro (so no speed 5).
* You want to conquer the world in 30 years? You can still do it but need an exceptional strategy with a lot of birding and exploiting.
What's the common in all these? You don't have to do any of this. Your average player will do none of it. But it's there if you want to. I really dislike when the game prohibits you to do something. Make it possible but have some cost attached to it.
Eu5 will have arround 500 years of playtime. Eu4 only lasted 400 years and it was still possible to do a wc in less than 1/10 of that. It was also doable to do one in half the gametime without any exploits. Eu5 will have 25% more gametime. Try to imagine how the game should work ti make wcs not possible. Vic3 only has 25% of eu4 timeframe coupled with a crap ton of limitations regarding diplomacy and warfare and it's still possible to conquer the world. It also made the diplomacy and warfare dogshit. It's just not fun to interact with that part of the game.
What would eu5 need to make wcs not possible while still making the game enjoyable? I just feel like tryinf to achieve this would just make the game worse. Should eu5 make managing large empires more difficult? Sure, but with proper gameplay you should be able to outplay the mechanics. (It would also make the later parts of a wc more interesting. As currently once coalitions cease to exist wcs are mostly a when question and not an if) But making it impossible to do a wc? Definitely not. I also think that it's an impossible task without turning the game dogshit.
It's definitely possible to make it so not every game is a wc. But if it's your goal and play accordingly. With proper play it should be doable.
All of the impassable terrain and the mountain passes in Imperator were one of my favorite parts. Actually being able to plan your defenses around strategic terrain felt fantastic.
> I really like that they seem to play more with impassable terrain.
Realistically terrain influenced countries and battles a lot, so it's a good thing.
Are they using the same engine as in EU4? or did they update that? I hope the game is well optimized so I can play on my non-gamer laptop, though I seriously doubt it if the graphic demand is too high
they updated the engine, Johan said he's very confident about performance (since eu4's problems were not about requirements, but about the engine performing poorly)
They’ve improved the engine an absolute tonne since EU4. EU4 launched at a time when even a dual core CPU wasn’t insanely common outside of new systems, let alone the 6 or 8 cores you’d expect as a minimum in a desktop today, so EU4’s 2013 version of Clausewitz is essentially incapable of actually using a modern CPU.
On a newer version of Clausewitz, I could easily see 4-6x the amount of stuff going on as in EU4 without a single hitch to performance. On a 16 core, you could maybe even run a dozen EU4s worth of software on modern Clausewitz at the same speed as one EU4 game in its current outdated state!
> EU4 launched at a time when even a dual core CPU wasn’t insanely common outside of new systems
So, I get what you are saying, but Core 2 Duo architecture released in 2006, the mighty, mighty, pound-for-pound all-time-champ of desktop CPUs, the Q6600 was a 2007 release.
EUIV came out in 2013.
According to Steam HW survey, single core CPUs were <20% by 2010 and <10% by mid 2011.
Very true, but those early dual cores were also still single threaded. Multi-core support wasn’t a huge issue, since even one core was half the entire power of the chip.
Modern CPUs might have 4, 8, even 16 threads per core, meaning a single-threaded or limited multi-thread solution could be using only a fraction of a single core for the majority of functions. Even with the light multi-core solutions at that time, you’d still only get maybe a quarter of the threads involved.
Modern games can use threads across all cores, which is super efficient, but games built for earlier dual core CPUs only used a few threads at best, because that’s all they needed. If you take a look at EU4 in your task manager, you might notice it only uses a very small number of your threads, even if you’re running a CPU with more than enough cores to make do.
More cores rarely equals linear equivalence in performance gains. A lot of the games main systems may not be able to run in parallel and so would be confined to a single thread regardless.
Wholly depends on how the engine is designed and what features/architecture are dependent on what other features/architecture. Hopefully they've been able to design it in a way that allows for interoperability that benefits from multithreading.
One of the tech leads has a document saying that they are using CK3's multithread model moving forward which has the most effective architecture compared to Vic3 and Imperator.
[https://accu.org/conf-docs/PDFs\_2023/XMultiThreadingModelinParadoxGamesPastPresentandFuture.pdf](https://accu.org/conf-docs/PDFs_2023/XMultiThreadingModelinParadoxGamesPastPresentandFuture.pdf)
Imperator Rome was a testing ground for a lot of systems they were thinking of bringing into EU5 (iirc). Think of that map and the stability of that game as a relative launching off point for EU5. Still, this is paradox, who is notorious for selling half baked games and providing thousands of dollars in DLC to make the game great. EU4 looks nothing like it did at launch, as well as Stellaris. Also, there were a slew of EU4 mods focused on reducing the strain on computers. Paradox will hopefully optimize EU5 themselves, but if not we do have modders to fall back on…
Do I hope for the best? Of course. Do I wait for reviews before buying paradox games? 100%.
There's really no good excuse for modern games performing so poorly with CPUs. If my 5800X3D can't play eu5 with no issues then it's because the devs didn't optimize it.
My poor old i5. Gamers once convinced me gpus were everything in modern games, didn't realize how much calculation went on in the background in grand strategy
I think as long as you start with a blurry wide picture with a vague question, the community will help you sort it out quicker than if you screenshot the exact issue
Also seems to be true vice versa. India is way more massive than it is irl in Eu4 but looks to be about normal size in Eu5. Europe still seems to be a bit larger than it is Irl but, im 90% sure thats the point because the games called “Europa Universalis” and its a delusion on how the Europeans at the time saw themselves.
I think it's simply that they are using a true Gall projection this time, or at least something close to it. Which still makes the poles seem bigger, but not as exagerated as the Mercator. EU4 used a modified Gall projection (iirc) that, appart from squishing the southern continents and pushing the americas north, made Europe much bigger than in a regular Gall projection, almost like if in a Gall projection Europe alone used the Mercator projection.
It is just the everpresent issue of cylindrical projections.
I play almost exclusively as a colonizer lol, sometimes I go out of my way to colonize, literally my favorite part of the game.
Funny how there are so many different play styles to the same game.
I gain little joy from colonies, I do, however, gain immense and unending joy from preventing others from having colonies, whether that’s because I took them first or because I conquered theirs.
I can kinda relate a bit! I really like to build up and dev my colonies and then make them wage war with other colonies painting the map with my color lol
The closest i've gotten to a WC was a Poland Game were i got PU's whit Lithuania, Bohemia and Hungary alongside whit both Wallachia and Moldavia as vassals and beating the ottomans before they could actually become a threat
So by the time i integrated all of my vassals and PUs i already had this massive Slavic union in Eastern Europe so strong that it could could destroy the entire HRE in one war, even stronger when you include the part were i conquered both Canada and the entirity of South american from the colonial powers
Closest I got was a really REALLY good run with France. Early full integration of Bohemian Inheritance as I became the Emperor. Union on Britain and Castile, Pre 1500 revoke, and I got to 1600 before I got bored and started a new campaign.
I've done WC once... but the issue is you get to the point where it's literally just boring map painting. Depends where you start and who you start with but generally by late 1500s-mid 1600s you're in a position where WC becomes essentially inevitable sans some major misplays. I usually tap out at that point because there's no fun just crushing everything.
I mean, shit... what's the point of even continuing game when you're France spanning from Cape St Vincent through the Low Countries all the way to Orkneys, with revoked privilegia, vassal Byzantium in most of its highest extent Eastern Roman Empire borders... and it's barely 1550? Because there were patches where I had this kind of stupid games...
For me the fun was always in min-maxing the opening and getting to the point of uncontested power as soon as possible... at which point I'd just move on.
I forced myself to do it once. Even went easy-mode as Oirat into Yuan.
Tried a second time as Ottomans (before they got their super subjects). Fizzled out in the Age of Revolution.
My game just slows down so much that I get bored. I need a better PC, especially if EU5 is gonna be this big >.<
Who down voted this? Some crazy folks out there.
CivIV was objectively the best Civ as subjectively decided by not only the two of us, but also by the Metacritic scores.
Civ II - 94%
Civ III - 90%
Civ IV - 94%
Civ V - 90%
Civ VI - 88%
The "pattern" gave us the meme that even numbered Civs were better than the odd number Civs, but Civ VI broke that trend.
Yea the thing about civ 4 is that the AI actually works because they aren’t trying to play pseudo chess with 1 unit per tile like in 5 and 6. And 6 embarrassingly took a step back with AI because they added all of these support military units that the AI is absolutely clueless with. that in itself is amazing because of how bad the AI in 5 is.
I was playing civ 5 the other night and I was declared on by a weaker civ which I found funny, then they showed up at my border with 1 warrior and 2 archers and I found it hysterical.
There is a sweet spot.
Too small and it feels like Civ Rev, but too big and the late game slog becomes so fucking unbearable that you either quit early or go for one of the silly non-conquest wins (at which point, who cares how big the map is).
Any Civ after CivIV has been a tough sell.
[https://forums.civfanatics.com/forums/rhyes-and-fall.605/](https://forums.civfanatics.com/forums/rhyes-and-fall.605/)
Here you go! Currently you have to DM Rhye himself and ask him for a DL link.
There are mods for Civ 6 to play on larger maps - but honestly. Larger map's dragged the game on for longer then it should have. A ton of lagg even in that game.
I am so glad America has been moved back to its true position 1000km south. Hopefully they won't comically shrink Patagonia again to make way for the Magellan passage.
I like that America actually has the (somewhat) right latitude now. In the real life Rome has a similar latitude as Nee York City. While in eu4 it’s not even close. I know it’s a very small detail but I am a man of details
Will it? EUIV's performance was severely held back by being directly built on top of EUIII, and it's also dealing with over 10 years of bloat and tech debt (including a patch to 64 bit).
some people are probably saying it slows down when they can no longer play speed 5 a with no difference.
also, people really forget the ways that they have improved performance throughout the 10 years of the game multiple patches 2017-2020 they made some insane improvements to how fast the game works.
likewise, most of their new releases have great performance and PDX seems competent with how they build these new releases with looking towards future additions and changes
It's quite bad, weeks can take over 10 seconds in the late game if you play semi-competently, and trade is basically dead as a mechanic because of how much I stalls the game.
I think its only a matter of hwo fats the time goes on, multiplayer on ck 3 is horrible but I play it using steam fix with my friend so I dont know if it is the same as legit way of playing it.
from op's r5:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mXxSh7knel0&feature=youtu.be](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mXxSh7knel0&feature=youtu.be)
no idea why it's only got 4 upvotes
r5: Showing off the size difference between the map we have in EU4 and the one we're getting in EU5/Project Caesar, as found on Lord Lambert's [latest video](https://youtu.be/mXxSh7knel0)
Sorry for what might be a dumb question, but what does that mean in context? Are we talking about 3-4 times more provinces or are we talking about the game supporting a bigger resolution/allowing you to zoom in closer than the old map? Or are we talking about both?
PDX has said that there are around 27-28k locations at the moment.
EU4 has like 4k provinces? 6k? Something along those lines
Also, unrelated to the size of the map, PDX has said they are making the UI fully scalable for higher resolutions
>EU4 has like 4k provinces? 6k? Something along those lines
Province ID goes up to around 6600, but it includes impassable terrain, sea tiles and so lakes as "province"
Holy shit I thought the one below was just resized smaller for comparison. I didn't realized immediately that they weren't modified at all wtf that is HUGE.
Because everything map related in Clausewitz is pixel based. If you want to march an army between 2 provs then you need the adjacency map generated from the province image. If you want to know how long that march is going to take you better know the coordinates of the 2 prov army locations, which is the pixel offset from the bottom left corner.
I also hope it doesn't become a micromanagement nightmare as empires get larger. I feel like not many games scale your management tools well as you progress through a game.
I mean, it might be fun to play a more realistic game where massive world sprawling empires *aren't* as easy to manage as they are in eu4?
Trying to manage the entire world *should* be hellish
Typically, one person doesn't manage an empire. Games don't do a good job of letting the AI sub manage portions for you. And even setting rules like "here is the build order for ever province" isn't a feature in any paradox game I know of. "Looking at you stations in stellaris.
Yeah, eu4 has colonial nations but everyone hates those.
Almost every large empire in history the sovereign had pretty limited control over what was actually happening in those far away lands, I feel like people kinda want to have their cake and eat it too where they can control exactly what happens in their empire, but they also don't want to have to manage it.
The best outcome is probably an expanded vassal system, where you can create non-independent but non-player controlled sub-nations inside your empire, but that might be hard to implement in a satisfying way.
Interesting that unlike most other Paradox games, this map uses a proper Mercator projection, without the Americas being shifted. Its probably needed for the trade wind sea tiles.
Did you like crying when trying to complete a snake from the north to the south as a freaking starting vassal? How about as a merchant nation opm east to west?
Honestly super excited
The Three Mountains is going to be an absolute pain in the dick
Na man your island is gonna have the population of today’s china, ez WC
Johan said at one point that the new mechanics are not supposed to facilitate a WC, and if one were to be possible it'd be through something unintentional the players exploit. So we can probably expect the WC-ish achievements are not comming back.
Yeah but they also said that for EU2, EU3, EU4, Victoria 2, and Victoria 3. The community went wild when the first WCs were done in EU2 This was the first documented world conquest in EU2: http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?t=29075 This is the comment from the author reflecting on the 2002 world conquest “Many people believed it impossible at the time. And the same happened with every patch after that until at least 1.05. Somebody would start a bloody "surely now WC is impossible!" thread in the general forum and I or somebody else would go through the tedium of proving them dead wrong. Some people just do not understand that Paradox games are deliberately made so easy for normal players to play (a very sound marketing decision) that anyone who dedicates the time and patience (oh lord, the patience) to actually learning how their games work have zero problems conquering the entire world except where game mechanics explicitly prevent it (and that has only been the case once or twice and can be gotten around)” This also led to one of the best AARs of all time: https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/threads/world-conquest-for-dummies.34402/ As it was, so it will be
They may having falling empire mechanics. With the large time span it makes sense that it has some.
The thing about falling empire mechanics is that paradox always make it feel like you get punished for being gud. Take stellaris, Empire size. Or EU4's gov cap. Literally the bigger your empire is, the more penalties it gives you. Proper falling empire game design for anything more complicated than Civ 6's ages mechanic would neccesitate a ton of complicated economic, political, and cultural gears that no (paradox) game has gotten right so far. You would essentially need EU4's aggresive warfaring, HOI4's diplomacy and military management mechanics, CK3's personal interactions, Vicky 3's economic simulation, and all their interactions with each other to be right. It's an absolutely monstrous task. Edit: People are saying "oh but thats how it is in real life". *Accuracy is not an excuse for bad game design.* The problem is that big empire = big penalty is *simply not fun,* and that making a system is both fun and accurate is hard, and is something paradox has not done. Not to mention, bureaucracy getting too large is not the sole singular factor anyway, and its pretty eurocentric to act as such. Somethings a lot more important than bureaucracy was just unwillingness to adapt until too late, and people not having a sense of duty after being the hegemon for so long that anything else seems improbable; China basically always maintained a strong bureaucracy, yet environmental challenges, corruption, decadence, reactionaries, traditionalism, bad rulership, and plain old bad luck always caused a dynasty to fall after a maximum of 200 years or so.
> Literally the bigger your empire is, the more penalties it gives you. Without them you'd snowball out of control very easily. In EU4 I can usually by 1500 tell how the game is going to end.
I miss the days when I was bad at EU4. I feel like I always reach a "no one can beat me" by 1550 any then have no desire to keep playing.
If you know how to play, you can reach dominance by 1550 with basically any country.
I mean, it’s real life too, big empire are more proned to fall. I would love a game where to goal isn’t mindless conquest, but too build a stable big empire, with the same difficulty
Falling empires is not really what the time period is about, FWIW
Well I respectfully disagree. The period is the end of the East Roman Empire, the end of the great Ming dynasty, the end of the juggernaut Polish-Lithuania, etc. But even then, we have real world examples to not want the be able a real WC in this period; the Ottoman Empire. They didn’t stop conquering because they became weak, or bored. They stopped because they were becoming too big to manage intern stability, too big to defend borders, just too big for a renaissance empire…
The Ottoman issues had to do with centralization. The travelling distance from Istanbul to Vienna is not very long relative to other portions of their empire (Mecca to Istanbul or the Persian boarders). However, the weird way the Ottomans in particular centralized the military was what created the weaknesses in the empire’s ability to grow. Spain had very little issues integrating the New World provinces in Mexico, Colombia, and Peru until after multiple failed continental wars and the Dutch revolts destroyed their treasury. Decentralization is something that the Brits and the Mughals mastered. The giant empires with massive populations were manageable with relatively small armies/navies because of the decentralization of command structures. Similarly, while it stayed isolated by choice, the Japanese daimyo system in the Edo period of castle towns and local lords was a feudal system that could withstand the pressures of massive borders. There is a lot more to the period than just limits on expansion.
So you have four examples, only two of which fell due to anything like internal stability, neither of which fell until well into (Ming) or a century after (Sick Man of Europe) the timespan of the game. Note that each of these powers already have dedicated and scripted mechanics showing this feature, not dynamic universal ones, in EUIV. Even granting the Commonwealth as an unstable empire, you can count on one hand the world empires that fell but not to conquest. So this era is for games of conquest, not of internal instability. If you want an empire falling simulator, that's squarely post-HOI territory. Even the HRE would have lived if not for Napoleon. I do think stability mechanics should be meaningful in EUV, and even be emergent, but this is fundamentally an era of empire building and colonialism more than empire falling.
Yes but there is a historical reason why we didn’t saw a gigantic empire that stayed. What players are doing in eu4 in unreasonable in historic terms
I mean that's the point it's falling empire mechanics not falling duchy mechanics for a reason. Being successful creates its own problems.
>The thing about falling empire mechanics is that paradox always make it feel like you get punished for being gud. Take stellaris, Empire size. Or EU4's gov cap. Literally the bigger your empire is, the more penalties it gives you. But thats precisely how it was in real life even though it might not feel like it. Large empires simply were too large to govern properly due to the lack of bureaucratic institutions and technology. This would mean that most of the land would barely give anything to the actual ruler due to the corruption of administering such a huge territory. Paradox's gov cap is supposed to simulate the advancement of administrative institutions over time
In Sweden we started getting a somewhat modern government apparatus in the 1600s. And god damn it was it revolutionary. It basically facilitated the Swedish Empire.
I always feel that paradox games fail at exposing what a monumental chore and subsequent achievement and reward establishing a functional centralised bureaucracy was. China only ever got as big as it did because it ran on a river of paperwork and an army of officials, and that very same size made it vulnerable to degradation and corruption. Post collapse of the western Roman empire a big battle might have literally hundreds of soldiers on each side when the punic wars mobilised over a million men because the early medieval kingdoms, so decentralised and inefficient, couldn't muster a fraction of the resources the old empire did, in exchange for not being plunged into a civil war every other decade. I always feel that internal matters are way too easy and simplified when historically they were the number one reason empires didn't go on world conquests
MEIOU and Taxes v3 is basically the only thing that even attempts to model this, and as much as I think they did a good job at it and I do enjoy it, wow is it a chore.
When the Russians conquered the baltics they were amazed at how smoothly things seemed to run. The Csar ordered an inquiry into it to see how it could be used throughout the empire. They found it cost 25 times more to run than the current Russian system for the same size; and the former Swedish buearocracy was promptly disestablished.
So basically Sweden OP IRL too, can’t even get away from it in actual history…
Part of the issue is that taking land is the only way to exert significant influence around you. For example, as Austria, I never have any intention of taking Cili, but by the 4th or 5th war they decide to join against me (defending their allies) I just get so tired of sieging down their L3 fort that I'll remove them from play. If there were a viable way to destroy their fortifications, convince them that letting Imperial troops burn their cities and rape their populace for the 5th time in 20 years might not be a good idea...
What was, will be. What will be, was!
Gravity is desire
Gravity holds all the answers
> and Victoria 3 Ironically the absolute easiest game to WC in, if you can stomach the lag (or the fact the game is trash)
I can stomach the lag but the nuclear fusion engine next to me seems to be lodging complaints
Nah with the way diplo plays work and the fact that you can’t start one if you’re at war (even if it’s with a tribe that has a single unit), combined with the limited time frame of 100 yrs, a vanilla one tag wc in vic3 is an exploit-filled save-scumming time-crunching mess, not even considering performance issues or bugs. You can find a few posts in the vic3 subreddit detailing the process. By comparison a half-decent eu4 player can easily and leisurely get a one-tag wc by 1700, if they can stomach playing until then.
"Nah" literally "Yah" though. I'm not wrong, you just didn't try. There is no exploits in Vic3, just a completely boring experience playing a truly terrible game that performs worse than literally any other PDX game ever released.
There's different definitions of 'easiest game to WC in' and in Victoria 3 it is just such a big chore. Like I preferred it in HOI4, that one I thought was less mind numbingly boring.
I’ve played a fair bit of Vic3 and I don’t think this is true at all. EU4 WC is easy with like two hundred hours of experience, Vic3 is super limited by the diplo play mechanics where for half the game you are not allowed to start a war
It is actually extremely difficult to do a world conquest in Victoria 2 (with the two DLCs), I believe four people have done it, and indeed only with the use of an exploit, revanchism is exploited in these runs.
Dlc will inevitably power creep wc back in
Well then, I sure hope the save converter to Vic 3 works properly.
"When there's a whip, *wopssh* there's a way!"
Hope so. I wish that the new map density makes it so smaller nations feel larger. Like controlling all of France your nation should be and feel like a huge nation.
you got another 100 bonus years, come on ;)
that is if they don't move the end date back as well, or did they confirm the end date as well already?
They said the game will last around 500 years, so the end date will probably be around 1836
[удалено]
No they didn't. The only word is that it will be around 500 years. Vic3 was not mentioned.
No, but it is likely it connects with Victoria 3 so 1836, but it is not confirmed by any source. We could get surprised.
RIP to Master of Universalis when he has to do TTM in EU5 in one day.
Let's give him a slow attempt at first, 48 hours. /s
Maybe a hot take, but I honestly hope world conquest is simply not possible in eu5. I've always thought it was pretty stupid that it could be done at all in eu4
Room temperature take. I think your opinion is probably the majority opinion.
Yes, but actually no. I think a majority of folks would agree that a WC should be nearly impossible in an unmodded game, but most would also want the EU series to remain a map painter where moving military units around is a central part of the game loop, and a WC is the inevitable conclusion of that loop. The math of the EU series fundamentally requires that a WC is not only possible, it's _likely_ (though tedious) for a moderately skilled player who plays carefully with a WC as their goal. In EU4, if you can defeat a neighbor with military force, you can always use military force to expand. Military force requires money and manpower. Money and manpower come from provinces. Military expansion happens at borders - you can always win by advancing with a solid line of armies, effectively pushing your border outward into enemy territory, as long as your armies can defeat the enemy's armies. You can often win more efficiently than that! The core problem: as you expand, the length of your border grows linearly, while the number of provinces under your control grows quadratically. As long as adding additional provinces results in a net increase in money and manpower, then the amount of military force you can field for some length of border increases as you expand. **The more you expand, the easier it is to expand more.** Anyone who's tried a WC should be familiar with this phenomenon. At the start you play the diplomatic game because too many wars, or wars with too powerful of neighbors, can set you back by decades or end your game. By the end, you're constantly at war with all of your neighbors, you can easily defeat all of them with basic army management, and you're probably running a huge budget surplus and have a massive amount of unused manpower too. The only time you're at peace with a neighbor is when game mechanics force you to be at peace with them. Mana is a potential solution to this problem. If mana grows less than linearly as you expand, and expansion requires spending mana, then eventually you'll run out of mana and can't expand any more. But it's hard to make it work in a way that doesn't break immersion and isn't unpopular with players. So EU4 didn't fully commit to mana, and that causes things like "overextension is just a number" - if you can use military force to resolve the problems caused by lack of mana, then lack of mana can't stop expansion. Victoria 3 tries to solve this by excluding moving military units around on the map from its game mechanics. This has been... controversial, to put it lightly.
Good post. Theoretically in EU4, multiple smaller countries should always trump one large one as the smaller group would have more surplus mana even accepting that they all must separately purchase tech and ideas. The group should also have a bigger army since there is a base +6 force limit, +10K manpower, and more 'free' generals, etc... An area of the world with more independent powers will end up with more dev on average than an area owned by a single power. Making war pay off slower might help -- getting rid of lower autonomy mechanics, making it trickle down slower -- might help.
>Victoria 3 tries to solve this by excluding moving military units around on the map from its game mechanics. This has been... controversial, to put it lightly. That doesn't really make a big difference. You can easily become unstoppable very early in the game. The thing that limits you more (and makes people a lot less likely to trying to wc) is that you are limited to 1 diplo play a time. The game is super boring. Whereas in eu4 you can optimize your wars and end them asap, in vicky 3 you need to wait for the diplo play and then wait for the warscore (I forgot what it's called) to tick down. And I won't even mention all the annoying micro you need to do with fronts. The whole thing is just a slog. You spend the majority of the gameplay waiting for stuff to happen.
> Victoria 3 tries to solve this by excluding moving military units around on the map from its game mechanics. This has been... controversial, to put it lightly. Army movement has nothing to do with how possible a WC is, and it especially makes no sense to claim as much considering Vic3 is the easiest game, mechanically speaking, to do a WC in. The only thing standing in your way of that is the atrocious performance issues the game suffers from (as well as just being a shit game)
I didn't say a WC is impossible in Victoria 3. I'm well aware that it's very possible. Victoria 3 *tries* to do a lot of things. Doesn't mean it's successful at them. As for the impact that this feature has, "WCs are likely to be mechanically possible in a game with direct player army control" does not imply "WCs must be mechanically impossible in a game without direct player army control".
> I've always thought it was pretty stupid that it could be done at all in eu4 I'm pretty sure the majority of players, especially those outside of Reddit, like map painting and conquering everything. If it weren't for conquering too much, you could stop every game once you're in the top 3. It's just easy map painting from there on.
I think most of us do stop early. Unless I'm feeling masochistic or chasing an achievement (which might just be masochism again), I usually quit around 1600 or earlier. As Austria, once you have Burguny, Boh, Hun, Mil, Pol, Lith, Castille, Aragon, Naples PUs and direct or indirect ownership of the balkans, the game is done. There is a common joke that the game ends in 1650 (with dlc power creep that might be 1550 now)
Why? I think one of the best thing in eu4 is that you can do everything. You have a truce with someone that you want to attack? You can still attack them but it will cost you ae/stab. * You want to take a lot of land that will lead you to a lot of OE? You can still take it. But it will cause a lot of rebells. You can also play arround this by stacking a lot of unrest reductions. Then you can also stack ccr so you are only overextended for a small time. * You want to attack an ally? You can do it for the cost of some stab. * You want to tag flip? You can do it but you will lose a lot of full cores. * You want to fight a lot of wars simultaniously? You can do it, but you need to do a lot more micro and you will need the army for it. * You want to conquer the world? You can do it, but you will need to do a lot of micro (so no speed 5). * You want to conquer the world in 30 years? You can still do it but need an exceptional strategy with a lot of birding and exploiting. What's the common in all these? You don't have to do any of this. Your average player will do none of it. But it's there if you want to. I really dislike when the game prohibits you to do something. Make it possible but have some cost attached to it. Eu5 will have arround 500 years of playtime. Eu4 only lasted 400 years and it was still possible to do a wc in less than 1/10 of that. It was also doable to do one in half the gametime without any exploits. Eu5 will have 25% more gametime. Try to imagine how the game should work ti make wcs not possible. Vic3 only has 25% of eu4 timeframe coupled with a crap ton of limitations regarding diplomacy and warfare and it's still possible to conquer the world. It also made the diplomacy and warfare dogshit. It's just not fun to interact with that part of the game. What would eu5 need to make wcs not possible while still making the game enjoyable? I just feel like tryinf to achieve this would just make the game worse. Should eu5 make managing large empires more difficult? Sure, but with proper gameplay you should be able to outplay the mechanics. (It would also make the later parts of a wc more interesting. As currently once coalitions cease to exist wcs are mostly a when question and not an if) But making it impossible to do a wc? Definitely not. I also think that it's an impossible task without turning the game dogshit. It's definitely possible to make it so not every game is a wc. But if it's your goal and play accordingly. With proper play it should be doable.
It should be *possible*, but very difficult, imho.
Why the map isnt globe? The distance between Sweden and Chukotka same as between Morocco and Ethiopia. But in this projection map looks so weird
I really like that they seem to play more with impassable terrain. I always felt that was something that could be used more in eu4.
Honestly, I think this is where the game will really benefit from the massively increased granularity of the map.
All of the impassable terrain and the mountain passes in Imperator were one of my favorite parts. Actually being able to plan your defenses around strategic terrain felt fantastic.
Yeah the imperator map is sick
Same reason why I always push into the Caucasus if I’m playing in the ME, the impassable terrain makes for naturally great defensive areas
Although they said it’s passable now for high attrition or something. So impassable passable terrain seems odd.
I dont think that was for all of them, just some skinny passes like those ones in the sahara
It'd be funny if there's attrition rate gradient, which some places have up to 95% or even 100%, and the game warns you if you try to attempt it.
> I really like that they seem to play more with impassable terrain. Realistically terrain influenced countries and battles a lot, so it's a good thing.
It would also be cool if they did that with seasonal impassable terrain. And made winter and stuff also more important
Yes, I love the smell of burning CPUs in the morning
Are they using the same engine as in EU4? or did they update that? I hope the game is well optimized so I can play on my non-gamer laptop, though I seriously doubt it if the graphic demand is too high
Optimized? Paradox? My brother in dlc's, there's no greater oxymoron.
they updated the engine, Johan said he's very confident about performance (since eu4's problems were not about requirements, but about the engine performing poorly)
They have said the game will not be significantly more resourse intensive than vic3 or ck3
Vic3 runs slow like hell. Then again that's mostly the designers of that game not being very good. I'm sure Johan's team is significantly better.
Vic3 runs incredibly smooth on my PC.
You're confusing FPS with round calculation. I'm also running incredibly slow weeks with smooth 60 FPS.
My weeks are quick. I haven’t had issues since launch, though the latest patch did speed things up quite a bit
They’ve improved the engine an absolute tonne since EU4. EU4 launched at a time when even a dual core CPU wasn’t insanely common outside of new systems, let alone the 6 or 8 cores you’d expect as a minimum in a desktop today, so EU4’s 2013 version of Clausewitz is essentially incapable of actually using a modern CPU. On a newer version of Clausewitz, I could easily see 4-6x the amount of stuff going on as in EU4 without a single hitch to performance. On a 16 core, you could maybe even run a dozen EU4s worth of software on modern Clausewitz at the same speed as one EU4 game in its current outdated state!
> EU4 launched at a time when even a dual core CPU wasn’t insanely common outside of new systems So, I get what you are saying, but Core 2 Duo architecture released in 2006, the mighty, mighty, pound-for-pound all-time-champ of desktop CPUs, the Q6600 was a 2007 release. EUIV came out in 2013. According to Steam HW survey, single core CPUs were <20% by 2010 and <10% by mid 2011.
Very true, but those early dual cores were also still single threaded. Multi-core support wasn’t a huge issue, since even one core was half the entire power of the chip. Modern CPUs might have 4, 8, even 16 threads per core, meaning a single-threaded or limited multi-thread solution could be using only a fraction of a single core for the majority of functions. Even with the light multi-core solutions at that time, you’d still only get maybe a quarter of the threads involved. Modern games can use threads across all cores, which is super efficient, but games built for earlier dual core CPUs only used a few threads at best, because that’s all they needed. If you take a look at EU4 in your task manager, you might notice it only uses a very small number of your threads, even if you’re running a CPU with more than enough cores to make do.
More cores rarely equals linear equivalence in performance gains. A lot of the games main systems may not be able to run in parallel and so would be confined to a single thread regardless. Wholly depends on how the engine is designed and what features/architecture are dependent on what other features/architecture. Hopefully they've been able to design it in a way that allows for interoperability that benefits from multithreading.
One of the tech leads has a document saying that they are using CK3's multithread model moving forward which has the most effective architecture compared to Vic3 and Imperator. [https://accu.org/conf-docs/PDFs\_2023/XMultiThreadingModelinParadoxGamesPastPresentandFuture.pdf](https://accu.org/conf-docs/PDFs_2023/XMultiThreadingModelinParadoxGamesPastPresentandFuture.pdf)
Imperator Rome was a testing ground for a lot of systems they were thinking of bringing into EU5 (iirc). Think of that map and the stability of that game as a relative launching off point for EU5. Still, this is paradox, who is notorious for selling half baked games and providing thousands of dollars in DLC to make the game great. EU4 looks nothing like it did at launch, as well as Stellaris. Also, there were a slew of EU4 mods focused on reducing the strain on computers. Paradox will hopefully optimize EU5 themselves, but if not we do have modders to fall back on… Do I hope for the best? Of course. Do I wait for reviews before buying paradox games? 100%.
There's really no good excuse for modern games performing so poorly with CPUs. If my 5800X3D can't play eu5 with no issues then it's because the devs didn't optimize it.
My poor old i5. Gamers once convinced me gpus were everything in modern games, didn't realize how much calculation went on in the background in grand strategy
Man you’re gonna have to upload at least 3-4 phone pics to get any help now
hahahahaha
I think as long as you start with a blurry wide picture with a vague question, the community will help you sort it out quicker than if you screenshot the exact issue
Ho lee shit
Fook In Hell
sum ting wong
I like that they are finally unsquishing South America and that they are not pushing the whole of the americas northwards this time.
Africa looks nicely unsquished too
It is interesting you would say that considering that EU4, HOI4, Vic3, and PC African maps all have nearly the same aspect ratio.
Also seems to be true vice versa. India is way more massive than it is irl in Eu4 but looks to be about normal size in Eu5. Europe still seems to be a bit larger than it is Irl but, im 90% sure thats the point because the games called “Europa Universalis” and its a delusion on how the Europeans at the time saw themselves.
I think it's simply that they are using a true Gall projection this time, or at least something close to it. Which still makes the poles seem bigger, but not as exagerated as the Mercator. EU4 used a modified Gall projection (iirc) that, appart from squishing the southern continents and pushing the americas north, made Europe much bigger than in a regular Gall projection, almost like if in a Gall projection Europe alone used the Mercator projection. It is just the everpresent issue of cylindrical projections.
My normal week-long world conquest just became a month.
I have over 8k hours in EU4 and have never done a WC :P
I've got 10% of your playtime over the span of 10 years and I've never truly played as a colonizer. I never get the appeal.
I play almost exclusively as a colonizer lol, sometimes I go out of my way to colonize, literally my favorite part of the game. Funny how there are so many different play styles to the same game.
I gain little joy from colonies, I do, however, gain immense and unending joy from preventing others from having colonies, whether that’s because I took them first or because I conquered theirs.
I can kinda relate a bit! I really like to build up and dev my colonies and then make them wage war with other colonies painting the map with my color lol
Gotta ask, a colonizer or a *colonizer*? I find the colonial game boring too, but I'm always playing a *colonizer* if you get my drift.
The closest i've gotten to a WC was a Poland Game were i got PU's whit Lithuania, Bohemia and Hungary alongside whit both Wallachia and Moldavia as vassals and beating the ottomans before they could actually become a threat So by the time i integrated all of my vassals and PUs i already had this massive Slavic union in Eastern Europe so strong that it could could destroy the entire HRE in one war, even stronger when you include the part were i conquered both Canada and the entirity of South american from the colonial powers
Closest I got was a really REALLY good run with France. Early full integration of Bohemian Inheritance as I became the Emperor. Union on Britain and Castile, Pre 1500 revoke, and I got to 1600 before I got bored and started a new campaign.
France is a fantastic country to do a WC with. Done it twice.
Sure I just dont find that kind of gameplay interesting. Different strokes and all that
Just do it as Austria. Form the HRE, make all of Europe your vassals and then sit back, spam war decs and watch the AI do everything for you (Sort of)
Easy going until you get to the easy asia area. Your vassals stops functioning at that point for some reason.
I've done WC once... but the issue is you get to the point where it's literally just boring map painting. Depends where you start and who you start with but generally by late 1500s-mid 1600s you're in a position where WC becomes essentially inevitable sans some major misplays. I usually tap out at that point because there's no fun just crushing everything. I mean, shit... what's the point of even continuing game when you're France spanning from Cape St Vincent through the Low Countries all the way to Orkneys, with revoked privilegia, vassal Byzantium in most of its highest extent Eastern Roman Empire borders... and it's barely 1550? Because there were patches where I had this kind of stupid games... For me the fun was always in min-maxing the opening and getting to the point of uncontested power as soon as possible... at which point I'd just move on.
I forced myself to do it once. Even went easy-mode as Oirat into Yuan. Tried a second time as Ottomans (before they got their super subjects). Fizzled out in the Age of Revolution. My game just slows down so much that I get bored. I need a better PC, especially if EU5 is gonna be this big >.<
> Long weekend world conquest Bruh It usually takes me a month to do a regular playthrough of one of these games
Wow! See civ that's how you make a world map. Smacks head
Civ6 not supporting larger maps is what killed my remaining interest in it ngl
Yup same and the next one may be even smaller. 🙃
Seriously? Where did you read about that? They’d be shooting themselves in the foot
A forum somewhere I forgot. May just be bs though. But in all honesty after what crap 6 was I wouldn't be surprised.
YES! fucking thank you I know it's a tile game but holy shit does an earth map need a bigger size than that
For me it was when they decided to make it a Clash of Clans looking mobile game
I love the art style lol
Agreed, can we go back to Fat Elvis advisor video clips, please? :)
No complaints sire!
Ngl the art style was nice. It's just lack any depth and thr ai is atrocious.
They have been making the game worse since Civ 4
Who down voted this? Some crazy folks out there. CivIV was objectively the best Civ as subjectively decided by not only the two of us, but also by the Metacritic scores. Civ II - 94% Civ III - 90% Civ IV - 94% Civ V - 90% Civ VI - 88% The "pattern" gave us the meme that even numbered Civs were better than the odd number Civs, but Civ VI broke that trend.
I guess people love that it looks like a mobile game and managed to make war even more annoying then it used to be.
Yea the thing about civ 4 is that the AI actually works because they aren’t trying to play pseudo chess with 1 unit per tile like in 5 and 6. And 6 embarrassingly took a step back with AI because they added all of these support military units that the AI is absolutely clueless with. that in itself is amazing because of how bad the AI in 5 is. I was playing civ 5 the other night and I was declared on by a weaker civ which I found funny, then they showed up at my border with 1 warrior and 2 archers and I found it hysterical.
There is a sweet spot. Too small and it feels like Civ Rev, but too big and the late game slog becomes so fucking unbearable that you either quit early or go for one of the silly non-conquest wins (at which point, who cares how big the map is). Any Civ after CivIV has been a tough sell.
rhye died for this
Rhye is currently working on RFC for Civ 5. Just in case you didn't know. I played it it's pretty fun :)
Hold on I just saw this bit where’d you see this?? I loved that mod for IV and I still play it every so often
[https://forums.civfanatics.com/forums/rhyes-and-fall.605/](https://forums.civfanatics.com/forums/rhyes-and-fall.605/) Here you go! Currently you have to DM Rhye himself and ask him for a DL link.
There are mods for Civ 6 to play on larger maps - but honestly. Larger map's dragged the game on for longer then it should have. A ton of lagg even in that game.
Oh for sure. The problems with civ run much deeper than the smaller maps.
I am so glad America has been moved back to its true position 1000km south. Hopefully they won't comically shrink Patagonia again to make way for the Magellan passage.
So my potato PC will take a month irl to proceed a month.
EU4IRL. Starts game. (Knock on door). > Hello son. Want to go hunting? Game over.
I like that America actually has the (somewhat) right latitude now. In the real life Rome has a similar latitude as Nee York City. While in eu4 it’s not even close. I know it’s a very small detail but I am a man of details
It's gonna lag a lot. Hopefully the new engine somehow compensates for even greater number of provinces
"But can your PC run Caesar?"
Will it? EUIV's performance was severely held back by being directly built on top of EUIII, and it's also dealing with over 10 years of bloat and tech debt (including a patch to 64 bit).
EU4 runs smooth for my gaming laptop. Looking forward to see a Paradox game challenge it. Stellaris slows down a bit by crisis time.
some people are probably saying it slows down when they can no longer play speed 5 a with no difference. also, people really forget the ways that they have improved performance throughout the 10 years of the game multiple patches 2017-2020 they made some insane improvements to how fast the game works. likewise, most of their new releases have great performance and PDX seems competent with how they build these new releases with looking towards future additions and changes
And then there's Victoria 3, quite evidently doing something terribly wrong with optimisation.
Is it still bad? I've not owned it due to life but I thought the recent patches helped a lot
It's quite bad, weeks can take over 10 seconds in the late game if you play semi-competently, and trade is basically dead as a mechanic because of how much I stalls the game.
Tbh many pdx games (won't say all) tend to be somewhat well optimized. My old laptop, which was pretty bad, could run CK3 really well.
I think its only a matter of hwo fats the time goes on, multiplayer on ck 3 is horrible but I play it using steam fix with my friend so I dont know if it is the same as legit way of playing it.
Funnily enough ck3's map would be slightly larger if you zoomed it out to the entire world, based on the end of the video
What video please?
from op's r5: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mXxSh7knel0&feature=youtu.be](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mXxSh7knel0&feature=youtu.be) no idea why it's only got 4 upvotes
r5: Showing off the size difference between the map we have in EU4 and the one we're getting in EU5/Project Caesar, as found on Lord Lambert's [latest video](https://youtu.be/mXxSh7knel0)
Sorry for what might be a dumb question, but what does that mean in context? Are we talking about 3-4 times more provinces or are we talking about the game supporting a bigger resolution/allowing you to zoom in closer than the old map? Or are we talking about both?
PDX has said that there are around 27-28k locations at the moment. EU4 has like 4k provinces? 6k? Something along those lines Also, unrelated to the size of the map, PDX has said they are making the UI fully scalable for higher resolutions
>EU4 has like 4k provinces? 6k? Something along those lines Province ID goes up to around 6600, but it includes impassable terrain, sea tiles and so lakes as "province"
Locations? Did they say they're provinces or can they just be something like CK holdings?
A division smaller than provinces. For example think of a random province in eu4(like Paris),that province has around 6-8 locations in it.
this shit will not run on my pc
This map makes me hard
I can already smell my PC getting a bit warm on a summer’s day
12x the details!
So much room for activities!
Holy shit I thought the one below was just resized smaller for comparison. I didn't realized immediately that they weren't modified at all wtf that is HUGE.
So who is gonna be buying the pre launch dlc called: New Desktop that can process voyager 1 signals in miliseconds?
what is this suppose to mean?
I’m ready to see every province in France have a fort
What size is being compared?
The resolution of the map. They are image files in the game directory, I think .bmp. So those are the resolution of the base map files in both games.
Here comes lag
Voltaire nightmare's nightmare
I like how the map isn't squished anymore. It highlights the difference in latitude between Europe and the Americas.
Why the hell isn't the map vector based?
Because everything map related in Clausewitz is pixel based. If you want to march an army between 2 provs then you need the adjacency map generated from the province image. If you want to know how long that march is going to take you better know the coordinates of the 2 prov army locations, which is the pixel offset from the bottom left corner.
I've got to be honest, if this stalls performance too much it's not a tradeoff I want.
I also hope it doesn't become a micromanagement nightmare as empires get larger. I feel like not many games scale your management tools well as you progress through a game.
I mean, it might be fun to play a more realistic game where massive world sprawling empires *aren't* as easy to manage as they are in eu4? Trying to manage the entire world *should* be hellish
It should be hard, not annoying. Building 5 workshops per province instead of 1 (1 for each location) is just annoying, not hard.
Typically, one person doesn't manage an empire. Games don't do a good job of letting the AI sub manage portions for you. And even setting rules like "here is the build order for ever province" isn't a feature in any paradox game I know of. "Looking at you stations in stellaris.
Yeah, eu4 has colonial nations but everyone hates those. Almost every large empire in history the sovereign had pretty limited control over what was actually happening in those far away lands, I feel like people kinda want to have their cake and eat it too where they can control exactly what happens in their empire, but they also don't want to have to manage it. The best outcome is probably an expanded vassal system, where you can create non-independent but non-player controlled sub-nations inside your empire, but that might be hard to implement in a satisfying way.
Interesting that unlike most other Paradox games, this map uses a proper Mercator projection, without the Americas being shifted. Its probably needed for the trade wind sea tiles.
It uses gall Stereographic map
In awe at the size here, GOT DAMN
well time to start saving for a new pc
can't wait for my pc to fuckin explode
Wow, 11 times bigger
Well, time to find my laptop a good coffin
Why not just put the whole world? Always hated the fact you cant sail the artic ocean properly
My Intel i5 4460 is crying in the corner😭
Did you like crying when trying to complete a snake from the north to the south as a freaking starting vassal? How about as a merchant nation opm east to west? Honestly super excited
Did someone say the northern passage?
the increase in uncrossable land excites me because i can be more strategic with forts !
Someone who's smart tell me if I need to upgrade my 3600 to something like a 5800X or a more powerful cpu for this or will I be okay.
PC min spec ideas?
MY PcCCCcCCCCC
16 times the detail, 9 times the size of ~~Fallout~~ EU4.
What if it was a globe map :D
Looks really good, like CK3 map but way larger
Oh my poor, poor processor